| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: New regression test time |
| Date: | 2013-06-29 21:59:35 |
| Message-ID: | 51CF58C7.9040506@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/29/2013 02:14 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> AIUI: They do test feature use and errors that have cropped up in the
> past that we need to beware of. They don't test every bug we've ever
> had, nor do they exercise every piece of code.
If we don't have a test for it, then we can break it in the future and
not know we've broken it until .0 is released. Is that really a
direction we're happy going in?
>
> Maybe there is a good case for these last two in a different set of tests.
If we had a different set of tests, that would be a valid argument. But
we don't, so it's not. And nobody has offered to write a feature to
split our tests either.
I have to say, I'm really surprised at the level of resistance people on
this list are showing to the idea of increasing test coverage. I thought
that Postgres was all about reliability? For a project as mature as we
are, our test coverage is abysmal, and I think I'm starting to see why.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dann Corbit | 2013-06-29 22:38:51 | Re: New regression test time |
| Previous Message | Liming Hu | 2013-06-29 21:17:12 | Re: request a new feature in fuzzystrmatch |